Skip to main content.

South Dakota med board speaks too softly but carries a big stick

South Dakota med board speaks too softly but carries a big stick

Picture of William Heisel

Medical boards all across the country let doctors get away with fakery on their resumes.

But not South Dakota.

The South Dakota Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners makes applicants for licenses in a range of medical professions sign an affidavit saying "that any derogatory information regarding [the licensee's] personal background that was not disclosed when completing the application shall disqualify [the licensee] for registration in South Dakota." Then the board follows through by actually verifying the information with other state boards, law enforcement agencies, hospitals, and, presumably, the National Practitioner Data Bank.

This year, the board has taken action against 38 licensees. Five of those have been against fibbers.

Dr. Mark Swaim, a gastroenterologist in Jackson, Tennessee, applied for a license in South Dakota in August 2009. Swaim answered no to some key questions, as the board noted in a disciplinary action:

Whether he had been notified of a complaint by a medical facility or health-related entity.

Whether he had been subject to proceedings or investigations for any reason by any medical facility or health-related entity.

Whether he had a mental or emotional condition which could preclude him from performing the essential functions of his practice.

The board, unlike so many boards nationwide, did not take the "no" answers at face value. The board checked. And the board found that Swaim had been hit with multiple complaints "due to his disruptive behavior" and that he had "failed to complete a voluminous amount of required dictation," ultimately leading to his being placed "under medical care for emotional issues."

Failing to complete dictation in medicine is serious business. Those assessments of patients are what drive diagnoses, treatment decisions, surgeries, referrals to specialists and the list goes on. Whether any patients were harmed as a result is left unsaid, as is nearly everything else about Swaim's history. Tennessee is no help, either. The Medical Board there lists no actions against Swaim.

His "disruptive behavior" could have been the result of some understandable irritability after having his office destroyed by a tornado in 2008. Or it could have been something much worse. Consumers are never allowed a glimpse of the board's secret knowledge.

Another applicant for a license was fired from her previous job and lied about it. One had, literally, had his head examined by his previous employer and lied about it. One fudged the details about her previous DUI convictions, while another not only lied about his DUI conviction but also was convicted of another DUI during the license application process.

South Dakota either denied these applicants a license or intimidated them enough with its background investigations that the applicants backed out of the licensure process altogether.

Final question: Why not make this information easy to find? Patients cannot even easily verify whether a doctor has a license in South Dakota. To do so requiresa consumer to register with the board's website and provide a full name, email address and street address. To actually verify the license, a patient must pay a fee, too.

Forcing patients to register in order to view a public record is intimidating. Forcing them to pay is unnecessarily burdensome. Both run counter to a public safety mission. Is the goal to protect patients or protect physicians from scrutiny?

What makes this lack of disclosure even more remarkable is how South Dakota is taking action where other states, like Tennessee, have failed. Check out Dr. Samir Jain in Rhode Island or Dr. Khristine C. Botezan in Florida. The South Dakota board took seriously what these states ignored. It should take its stated mission "to protect the health and welfare of the state's citizens" seriously, too.

Jenn Harris contributed to this report. Photo credit: Angelinamerkel via Flickr

View Swaim and other doctors on the Doctors Behaving Badly Google map.

Comments

Picture of

I suspect the SDMOE's diligence in such matters has to do with its past experience with a man called Michael Swango [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Swango].

Picture of

Dr Swaim (hate to even call him a doctor) was the most cruel and most hateful doctor I have ever had the displeasure of sering. He accused me of things I NEVER did in his notes, treated me with utmost disrespect and even yelled at me and slammed his fist on the counter regarding an ear infection I had while seeing him for other issues related to his field. I have heard him cursing outside patient rooms and he always kept patients anywhere from 4 to 6 hours for each visit. It was a harrowing year to have to endure that kind of treatment from what was supposed to be a caring physician. He is the worst doctor in the world in my oil. He should not be licensed in any state or country. It was not the tornado that caused his so called "disruptive behavior" but his drug use which was commonly known among his staff members. He was found passed out on numerous occasions in the hallway when staff would come in the mornings. Furthermore, he would wait until 1 a.m. to make his hospital rounds (if he showed up at all) so he wouldn't have to deal with his patients. He should have his license revoked forever in any state. He does not deserve his title and obviously never took the Hippocratic oath seriously. I detest him and he is a discredit to his field. You may contact me or print anything I have said because it is a fact. Just read the reviews on him. I am not the only one that feels this way. I think the tornado was God saying "this is what you deserve."

Leave A Comment

Announcements

A global pandemic, a national reckoning with racism, botched school reopenings and leadership vacuums — it's not an easy moment to be starting out as a journalist. Join us as we hear from three youth journalists from around the country as they discuss the massive challenges confronting their generation. Sign-up here

Ready to take your journalism to a new level by honing your data analysis and visualization skills?  We're offering our highly acclaimed annual Data Fellowship through Zoom from Nov. 30-Dec. 4.

Do you have a great idea for a potentially impactful reporting project on a health challenge in California?  Our 2020 Impact Fund can provide financial support and six months of mentoring.

CONNECT WITH THE COMMUNITY

Follow Us

Facebook


Twitter

CHJ Icon
ReportingHealth